The Three "R"s of Education: Reading, Writing, and Revolution
I have a serious concern with educational systems today. Don't worry; this isn't another rant about how Affirmative Action has oppressed me. I'm a middle class white kid with more opportunity than I know what to do with. I'm also not about to complain about all the "liberally biased” teachers trying to turn students into communists. The issue I want to address is the educational system itself, a topic that often takes a backseat to these other (less important) issues.
My concern is that teachers are relying on ‘banking’ methods of teaching rather than methods that encourage students to think critically and become better students. Instead of teachers merely providing students with the information that goes in the blank on the test question, what they need to do is encourage students to make the information relevant to their lives. What is the goal of teaching if not providing students with information that will enable them to better their lives? The problem is the absence of praxis and of the Socratic Method. Rarely are students encouraged to explain or even understand their own answers, to think critically about the information as it relates to real life. Merely being able to parrot back the 'answers' to their teachers seems to be enough. Unfortunately, what this leaves students with is a "pile of bricks" with no building plans and no motivation.
Does this mean I think all teachers are 'bad' teachers? Absolutely not, there are some excellent teachers out there, but there are also abysmally bad teachers. Does this mean I think there is one definite idea of 'good' teaching methods? Of course not! All students learn differently. Their culture, their experiences, their age, their gender all affect the way they learn, so there obviously cannot be one fool-proof method of teaching all of them. This difference in learning styles is essential for teachers to understand. In order for a whole class, say, 30 individuals, to learn, a teacher must tailor their teaching in such a way that it is accessible to all learning styles. The teacher must also realize that they need to make the information relatable for all of these different students.
It is for this reason that I think large lecture classes are ineffective. There is no easy way to make class materials relatable for classes in excess of 100 students—or sometimes even 300+. In order for each student to be able to personally connect to the information and make it work for them, they need at least a small amount of individual attention, or at least the opportunity to have one-on-one interaction with an instructor. The argument could be made that students should make regular visits to these instructors' office hours; however, a brief meeting outside of class cannot substitute for a quality in-classroom learning experience. Office hours are often very short and many students are either unable to come to them due to classes, or feel uncomfortable doing so because of the awkward situation it creates. The student is unfamiliar with student-teacher interactions outside of the classroom (let alone an actual one-on-one conversation), and as such do not take advantage of the option, if it is even available.
So what does this mean? It means that teachers and administrators need to rethink very carefully the educational strategies that are currently being used in these institutions. It means that students studying to be teachers need to make sure they don't fall into the traps of old-fashioned education and make an effort to bring with them revolutionary ideas and teaching styles. It means that teachers need to remember the experiences they had as a student as well as their experiences as a teacher. They need to remember these things and fix any and all of the things that went wrong. For a teacher, forgetting is death. It is not a physical death, but an ideological death. If teachers forget their experiences they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that have been made in the past. If teachers forget their experiences, they are becoming hypocrites, because what is learning if not thinking on experiences and adapting to them?
My concern is that teachers are relying on ‘banking’ methods of teaching rather than methods that encourage students to think critically and become better students. Instead of teachers merely providing students with the information that goes in the blank on the test question, what they need to do is encourage students to make the information relevant to their lives. What is the goal of teaching if not providing students with information that will enable them to better their lives? The problem is the absence of praxis and of the Socratic Method. Rarely are students encouraged to explain or even understand their own answers, to think critically about the information as it relates to real life. Merely being able to parrot back the 'answers' to their teachers seems to be enough. Unfortunately, what this leaves students with is a "pile of bricks" with no building plans and no motivation.
Does this mean I think all teachers are 'bad' teachers? Absolutely not, there are some excellent teachers out there, but there are also abysmally bad teachers. Does this mean I think there is one definite idea of 'good' teaching methods? Of course not! All students learn differently. Their culture, their experiences, their age, their gender all affect the way they learn, so there obviously cannot be one fool-proof method of teaching all of them. This difference in learning styles is essential for teachers to understand. In order for a whole class, say, 30 individuals, to learn, a teacher must tailor their teaching in such a way that it is accessible to all learning styles. The teacher must also realize that they need to make the information relatable for all of these different students.
It is for this reason that I think large lecture classes are ineffective. There is no easy way to make class materials relatable for classes in excess of 100 students—or sometimes even 300+. In order for each student to be able to personally connect to the information and make it work for them, they need at least a small amount of individual attention, or at least the opportunity to have one-on-one interaction with an instructor. The argument could be made that students should make regular visits to these instructors' office hours; however, a brief meeting outside of class cannot substitute for a quality in-classroom learning experience. Office hours are often very short and many students are either unable to come to them due to classes, or feel uncomfortable doing so because of the awkward situation it creates. The student is unfamiliar with student-teacher interactions outside of the classroom (let alone an actual one-on-one conversation), and as such do not take advantage of the option, if it is even available.
So what does this mean? It means that teachers and administrators need to rethink very carefully the educational strategies that are currently being used in these institutions. It means that students studying to be teachers need to make sure they don't fall into the traps of old-fashioned education and make an effort to bring with them revolutionary ideas and teaching styles. It means that teachers need to remember the experiences they had as a student as well as their experiences as a teacher. They need to remember these things and fix any and all of the things that went wrong. For a teacher, forgetting is death. It is not a physical death, but an ideological death. If teachers forget their experiences they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that have been made in the past. If teachers forget their experiences, they are becoming hypocrites, because what is learning if not thinking on experiences and adapting to them?
Labels: education
posted by Terry at 2:24 PM
2 Comments:
Well said Terry. I think that you should send this in as an editorial to a teachers magazine or at least forward it to some of the teachers you know, particularly ones who might need to hear it.
Colleen
Preach on Brother, preach on!
Post a Comment
<< Home